Posted 3 years ago on Sept. 6, 2013, 10:25 a.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"As the US intensifies its push for military intervention in Syria, virtually the only narrative available swings from the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad to the role of Islamist elements within the resistance. Further, where dissent with the US position appears, much of it hinges on the contradiction of providing support for Al Qaeda-linked entities seeking to topple the regime, as though they represent the only countervailing force to the existing dictatorship. But as Jay Cassano recently wrote for tech magazine Fast Company, the network of unarmed, democratic resistance to Assad's regime is rich and varied, representing a vast web of local political initiatives, arts-based coalitions, human rights organizations, nonviolence groups and more. (The Syria Nonviolence Movement created an online, interactive map to demonstrate this intricate network of connections.)

Meanwhile, the writing and dispatches of Syrian anarchists have been enormously influential in other Arab struggles, with anarchists tortured to death in Assad's prisons memorialized in the writing of Palestinians, and at demonstrations for Palestinian political prisoners held in Israel. Two key features of this unfolding warrant close attention: the manner in which anarchists in the Arab world are increasingly staging critiques and interventions that upend the contradictions held up as justification for US foreign policy, and the ongoing conversations between anti-authoritarian movements in the Arab world that bypass and remain unmediated by Western reference points. Whether Syrian anarchists' insistence on self-determination as a central organizing principle can withstand the immediate reality of violence or the leverage of foreign interests remains an open question.

Nader Atassi is a Syrian political researcher and writer originally from Homs, currently living between the United States and Beirut. He runs the blog Darth Nader, reflecting on events within the Syrian revolution. I talked him into chatting about its anarchist traces, and the prospect of US intervention. "

118 Comments

I found this to be the clearest, most straight forward look at the situation there.

What's there to argue with?

You recently wrote on your blog about possible US intervention as a sort of corollary to Iranian and Russian intervention on behalf of Assad, and Islamist intervention in revolutionary movements. Much as with Egypt recently, anarchists seem something of signature voice against two unsatisfactory poles within mainstream coverage - a voice preoccupied with self-determination. Is that a fair understanding?

Yes, I believe it is, but I would clarify a few things, as well. In the case of Syria, there are many who fit that description; not only anarchists, but Trotskyists, Marxists, leftists, and even some liberals. Also, this iteration of self-determination is based on autonomy and decentralization, not Wilsonian notions of "one people" with some kind of nationalist, centralized self-determination. It is about Syrians being able to determine their own destinies not in the nationalist sense, but in the micro-political sense. So for example, Syrian self-determination doesn't mean one track which all the Syrians follow, but each person determining their own track, without others interfering. So Syrian Kurds, for example, also have the right to full self-determination in this conception, rather than forcing them into an arbitrary Syrian identity and saying that all the people that fall under this identity have one destiny.

And when we talk about parties, such as the regime, but also its foreign allies, and the jihadis who are against Syrian self-determination - this is not because there is one narrative of Syrian self-determination and jihadis are against it. Rather, they want to impose their own narrative on everyone else. The regime works and has always worked against Syrian self-determination because it holds all political power and refuses to share it. The Islamists work against Syrian self-determination not by virtue of them being Islamists (which is why a lot of liberals oppose them), but because they have a vision of how society should function, and want to forcefully impose that on others whether those people consent to it or not. This is against Syrian self-determination, as well. The allies of the Assad regime, Iran, Russia and various foreign militias, are against Syrian self-determination because they are determined to prop up this regime due to the fact that they've decided their geopolitical interests supersede Syrians deciding their destiny for themselves.

So yes, the mainstream coverage always tries to portray people as belonging to some kind of binary. But the Syrian revolution erupted as people demanding self-determination from the one party that was denying it to them: the regime of Bashar al Assad. As time passed, other actors came onto the scene who also denied Syrians their self-determination, even some who fought against the regime. But the position was never simply to be against the regime for the sake of being against the regime, just as I presume that in Egypt, our comrades' position is not being against the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] for the sake of being against the Ikhwan. The regime took self-determination away from the people, and any removal of the regime that results in replacing it with someone else who will dominate Syrians should not be seen as a success. As in Egypt, when the Ikhwan came to power, those who considered them an affront to the revolution, even if they weren't felool [Mubarak loyalists], kept repeating the slogan "al thawra mustamera" ["the revolution continues"]. So too will it be in Syria if, after the regime is gone, a party comes to power that also denies Syrians their right to determine their own destiny.

"believe Omar's vision did breathe life into the way local councils operate, although it is worth noting that the councils have stopped short of self-governance, opting instead for focusing on media and aid efforts. But they still operate based on principles of mutual aid, cooperation and consensus."

At this point, studying the corruption for as long as I have, and having been involved in enough campaigns to become very familiar with what the goals -preelection are= and then seeing them all trampled on, repeatedly....

The day you have the gumption to actually do that to someone will be your first. I'm not too worried.

I'm not here to make friends with faceless usernames, Im here to discuss and possibly learn something, of which does happen. I also find it a personal duty to find people who support the war machine and attampt to put their misguided faith- do to various reasons- in line with basic common sense and dignity.

I'd love to see you show up at some antiwar demonstrations with people hwo have served and talk all your bullshit. Talk about breaking peoples legs. Your scrawny ass wouldnt last a heartbeat in the wars you want so badly.

You want him out? Then take your raggedy old ass over there and get busy. Stop asking others to do your blood lust.

You come very close to quoting Einstein! He also said "Imagination is more important then knowledge" And that falls very close to a Lennon-ist ideology (John Lennon, not the russian dude) 'Imagine'. Our most outspoken fab four band leader also said "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination". I tend to agree!

Well the whole thing has hinged on Russian reaction - as they want Syria for access to oil and ability to run a pipeline to the coast. The USA corp(se)oRATists have been weighing Russia's commitment. Now it seems as though the corp(se)oRATist hawks think they can call Russia's bluff.

Russia and China have been the two major holdouts against intervention in the UN this whole time. I think the USA corp(se)oRATists were hoping that the UN would intervene - as that would not require USA public support - and - the MIC would still be selling plenty of arms.

But, if this was really all about saving lives then they would have already done (as said by Facts) stopped that oil supply for a good week. It would have been done and over with.

But, that wasn't useful. If Assad is right (and even if he isn't) and the US has decided to wreak havoc in his country then this is a chess game. Similar to the others. If the US goes in then there will be war for many years. Not directly with Russia and China but indirectly through continued proxy wars. Many more will die.

So, if this was really about saving lives and people really gave a fuck-they would pull their heads out of their asses and stop the oil. Negotiations and resolving internal issues can be dealt with all parties involved after the shit stops.

It " ALL " is truly insane as currently there is no need for further fossil fuel extraction. We ( the world ) have the technology to implement full scale TODAY that would eliminate the need for any fossil fuel.

So - with this ability and no loss of prosperity. WHY THE FUCK IS ALL OF THIS NEEDLESS KILLING AND STRIFE GOING ON ???

It is GREED plain and simple - Greed for power and control. It is not important that "we" ( you and I and joe down the block ) control but some insane asshole with a severe case of megalomania ( yes there is more than one such asshole - hence the endless strife- within each country and country to country ). This/These insane assholes need followers to keep their crap functioning. The truly sad thing is - we could lock em all up - throw away the key - BUT - for some UNFATHOMABLE reason - WE HAVE NOT.

Westerners are greedy bastards. The facebook generation is going to be one of the worst in world history. Watch out for those teenagers who are posting pictures of themselves and fishing for compliments 24/7. Its how tyrants are created.

Westerners are greedy bastards. The facebook generation is going to be one of the worst in world history. Watch out for those teenagers who are posting pictures of themselves and fishing for compliments 24/7. Its how tyrants are created.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

OMG - REALLY??? - Just westerners??? - the reality " IS " that there are Insane GREEDY Megalomaniacs all over the world.

I wasnt aware we were exporting energy to them. Natural gas, coal or oil?

Right now they control the government there is theres entirely. I think maybe if we go in and they stand back, we have reached an agreement.

If we dont go in at all, its because they called us out and we are finally dysfunctional enough that we have to listen to other people.

THe IMF states that China will be the #1 economy in the world in 2016. There is going to be a point in the near future where our country, for the first time in anyones memory, wants to do something and another country told them no, and we have no choice but to listen.

The first is that all of a sudden we have anarchists in Syria. Kind of like all of a sudden there are anarchists in Egypt. The military just happens to drop by Egypt and two weeks later there are guys clad in black busting shit up? The rest of Egypt has never seen this. Articles come out. Interviews. And no one is even going to question this? Not one person is going to question it?

The second is this: The EU says that they aren't going to buy oil, then they are willing to buy it from rebels, AND it's ok to invest and export equipment.

So, let's cut the shit on this. They are fighting over control of the oil wells and a pipeline. The rebels want to and are selling the oil. This is not about freedom and democracy. You can have a bunch of jackasses running their mouth about AIPAC but.......until the EU grows a pair and stops buying all together..........these people will continue to die. The US, the EU, the UN, China and Russia.........flat out don't give a fuck who dies. So, while it's nice to say....there is an opportunity to bring the house down....there isn't. So, now it's time for people to think about the least amount of people dying.

Yep - Asshat has been killing his people for two years - while the UN sits on it's thumb. I guess everyone thought that Asshat would have been killed by his own people long before now. So all of a sudden an escalation in the killing of his people ( by him? ) by chemical warfare. OOOps Asshat that is a line you can not cross. The world wide community has no problem with you mass murdering your population - as long as you don't do it with chemical weapons. You should have taken a tip from the US indiscriminate killing of civilians with Drones - no Hugh and cry there. Well live and learn - ooops - again - Asshat they want you dead ( your people do as well as the forces of conquest ).

If it is sent to the UN general assembly then nothing will be done. That is the reason that anything is sent there. The only way for things to be done is through the Big Five and usually through a bunch of dick swinging diplomats.

Or Asshat has been fighting a bunch of fucknuts that have decided that there is to be a regime change specifically for foreign interests. Which then means that it isn't Asshat that is the Asshat here. He is an asshat for other reasons.

Sure it does. I said earlier that not every country is a US client state. Russia and China have client states. Syria happens to be Russia's client state. This is where the swinging dick theory gets played out. Now France wants a binding resolution with consequences.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

That's why I said if they were serious about dead Syrians then the EU would grow a pair and would stop buying oil. Facts is correct. Russia would stop that shit immediately.

I also found his description of the media creating an illusion of duopoly, interesting to say the least.

"So yes, the mainstream coverage always tries to portray people as belonging to some kind of binary. But the Syrian revolution erupted as people demanding self-determination from the one party that was denying it to them: the regime of Bashar al Assad. As time passed, other actors came onto the scene who also denied Syrians their self-determination, even some who fought against the regime. But the position was never simply to be against the regime for the sake of being against the regime, just as I presume that in Egypt, our comrades' position is not being against the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] for the sake of being against the Ikhwan. The regime took self-determination away from the people, and any removal of the regime that results in replacing it with someone else who will dominate Syrians should not be seen as a success. As in Egypt, when the Ikhwan came to power, those who considered them an affront to the revolution, even if they weren't felool [Mubarak loyalists], kept repeating the slogan "al thawra mustamera" ["the revolution continues"]. So too will it be in Syria if, after the regime is gone, a party comes to power that also denies Syrians their right to determine their own destiny."

"If the strikes end up being tougher than what is currently being discussed, for one reason or another, and they do make a significant change on the battlefield, or do significantly weaken the Assad regime, then I think the potential negative effects will be different. I think this will lead to a future Syrians won't have a hand in determining. The US may not like Assad, but they have many times expressed that they believe that regime institutions should remain intact in order to ensure stability in a future Syria. In short, as many have noted, the US wants "Assadism without Assad." They want the regime without the figure of Assad, just like what they got in Egypt, when Mubarak stepped down but the "deep state" of the military remained, and just like what happened in Yemen where the US negotiated for the president to step down but for everything to remain largely the same. The problem with this is Syrians chanted, "The People Demand the Downfall of the Regime," not just Assad. There is consensus across the board, from US to Russia to Iran, that no matter what happens in Syria, regime institutions should remain intact. The same institutions that were built by the dictatorship. The same institutions that plundered Syria and provoked the popular discontent that started this uprising. The same institutions that are merely the remnants of French colonialism. Everyone in Syria knows that the US's preferred candidates for leadership roles in any future Syria are those Syrians who were part of the regime and then defected: Ba'athist bureaucrats turned neoliberal technocrats turned "defectors." These are the people the US would have rule Syria."

: It is about Syrians being able to determine their own destinies not in the nationalist sense, but in the micro-political sense. So for example, Syrian self-determination doesn't mean one track which all the Syrians follow, but each person determining their own track, without others interfering."

Please butcher the article some more. Lets see where they describe the media binary as an illusion. Just you making shit up again. Its probably right next to your "promise to run candidates!!"

"anarchists seem something of signature voice against two unsatisfactory poles within mainstream coverage - a voice preoccupied with self-determination. Is that a fair understanding?
Yes, I believe it is, but I would clarify a few things, as well."

" Also, this iteration of self-determination is based on autonomy and decentralization, not Wilsonian notions of "one people" with some kind of nationalist, centralized self-determination. "

More talk of decentralization. Must be a tea bagger movement!! hahahahaha.

I'm sticking up for what I thought was a very good post. You seem to be slandering it with:

"It's an anarchists view that seems to be avoided in this entire mess.
I also found his description of the media creating an illusion of duopoly, interesting to say the least."

And I will say that I do enjoy conversations, I think the four of you are horribly misguided in your statements that Im a Koch loving right winger, but regardless if you are going to achieve anything at all politically, you have to be able to speak to people whom you dont like politically.

Dont have to hug them, but you cant blast their entire life, threaten to break their legs, tell them they worship the Koch Brothers, etc.

There is no illusion of duopoly. Its very real. We have two seemingly different entities each saying they can lead us to the promise land, each that has a thousand different reasons and excuses as to why it never happens.

When you figure in how a two party-divide and conquer system works, its very obvious.

This does a good job of laying it out in very easy to understand terms of how the system is set up to function with each side having to only lobby a little bit every. single. time.